Does everyone need reading glasses eventually?

[sakura-panda]

I'm over 40 and I do not have reading glasses. I have correction lenses for near-sightedness. Over the years I have gotten used to reading with my contacts in and I think my eyes have compensated for it. I had one near sighted parent and one far sighted parent; my optometrist is watching me to see which way my eyes are going to go. Three years ago, they started to move away from being near sighted, but over the last two years, they haven't changed at all.

My mom has reading glasses now (she is far sighted) and I can't recall if my dad had bifocals in his glasses (he was near sighted.) Chances are good I'll need some eventually and I expect they will be in addition to my contact lenses, rather than going to bifocals. Some days I want to switch to glasses all the time, but after a day of it, I'm always ready to go back to my contacts.

Originally Posted by haydnfan

Well not everyone. I know people in their 40s all the way to their 60s that don't need reading glasses.

There are some people that have difficulty reading and concentrating on high contrast media. Try switching from black font on white background to either black font on sepia background, gray background or white font on black background.

Font settings as well have an impact on readability. You will read better on a serif font than a sans serif or a slab serif. I would suggest trying the Georgia font. Also the use of white spacing is important. Make sure that line spacing is 1.5 spaced or double spaced. Adjust the margins and font size until you have 10-15 words per line. Going less than or greater than that interval results in the line either feeling too short or too long.

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

I have a problem with high contrast and white text on a black background is too much for me. It needs to be a pale gray or else my vision goes double. I usually use a light purple background with black text, but any color is better for me than white.

I've seen a few posts recently that say serif is better for reading, but for me sans serif is much easier. A lot of websites use sans serif I thought because it was supposed to be easier for screen reading.

I think white on black is pretty hard to read for text. (It is okay for photo captions since I think photos look better on black backgrounds. I wouldn't want to read a whole paragraph that way.) Personally, I prefer dark brown font on a sepia/tan background (not often an option) or black font on an off white/gray background. I also keep my brightness turned down quite a lot -- I don't like my page to glow or to be very bright.

Interesting about fonts, as I have always preferred serif fonts over sans serif. I have also heard that sans serif is supposed to be easier/faster to read, and that may be true, but I think it is less pretty to look at than the other ones and will switch it in my ebooks if I can.

[Mnementh]

Originally Posted by webroot

Even if you are 40+ dont just blindly believe what doctors are saying, more than your well-being their are interested in money, a recurring patient. So if you are healed, thats the end of their business, its like conventional marketing tactic you need to stick with previous buyers as the chances of new buyer is not high. Hard to believe that there is no way they can treat your eyes.

Got to chime in on this one... Conspiracy Theorist much?

There's so many things wrong with this statement it's hard to know where to begin. I'm a qualified Optician (haven't practiced for over 15 years so no claims of bias should be able to be made) so can speak from a position of some authority on this. Eye care isn't a case of "heal it and done" so cannot be compared to medical conditions as you seem to want to do, there are obviously eye conditions which can be healed and forgotten about however most of them can't they are an on-going care issue.

The issue we are talking about here though, presbyopia, is not a medical condition that you can take a pill or drops for, it cannot be "healed" it is a natural part of the ageing process and gets progressively worse as you get older. It starts affecting most people from the age of 45 however it can start much earlier or indeed much later (though later is much rarer). I've dealt with children as young as 4 with presbyopia and a few cases of adults well into their 60's before they started suffering. It's caused by the lens in the eye losing it's elasticity as you get older, there is nothing that can be done to prevent this (at this time; there may well be in the future) and will affect everybody at different rates.

As for the bit about money being all Opticians/Opthalmologists care about I find that really offensive, no self respecting Optician will try to sell a patient something they don't need (and indeed can lose their license to practice if they try), there will always be bad apples in any large group of people but the vast majority are not.

Originally Posted by webroot

Keep a strict eye distance while reading otherwise eyes sight will permanently adjust for short range. Dont read for longer, this is similar to siting posture when body gets stiff when we sat in same position for long.

Please don't spread misinformation like this, it's complete and utter baloney. Your eyesight will never "permanently" adjust for near vision it's physically not possible. Far vision occurs when the eye is at rest i.e. the ciliary muscle is relaxed so the ligaments holding the lens in place and the pressure of the aqueous and vitreous humour (the fluid in the eye) cause the lens to flatten giving you your far vision, the opposite happens when you focus on a near object or read close up, the ciliary muscle contracts causing the lens in the eye to become fatter (more +ve in strength) allowing you to see close up. This is why reading prescription help is needed as you get older because the lens cannot change its shape as easily as it did when you were younger and eventually will not be able to change it's shape enough to allow you to focus at a close distance.

Originally Posted by webroot

Thinking causes blurring of eyes, so any kind of activity that springs up mental activity more, then you are not looking at objects around but always focused inside inner image.

NOTE: this is from my personal experience.

I'm sorry that sentence made no sense to me I'm struggling to infer what you actually meant by it? Are you trying to say that thinking ergo reading is bad?

Mnementh

[crich70]

And some eye conditions are based on underlying problems that effect the whole body. Things like diabetes for example. High blood sugars can cause problems not only with obvious things like the kidneys and the heart but with the eyes as well. I have a yearly eye exam for just that reason. After one such exam I had to have some laser treatment on my left eye due to some slight bleeding in the eye. It was just starting to be a problem and the Dr. nipped it in the bud in order to prevent future problems.

[cfrizz]

Progressives take getting used to that is for sure, but your eyes eventually know where they need to look to keep things in focus. While progressives are good in theory, the fact is that almost everyone ends up getting reading glasses eventually simply because of the awkward angle you either have to hold your reading material, or your head!

Very few people escape having to wear glasses as they hit middle age and up. And those that claim they don't need them, I take with a grain of salt when they are trying to read a menu and they have their arms fully extended to try to see it clearly! I once told my boss "Your arms are NOT going to grow any longer Maureen, go get some glasses!" It took her a few months to accept reality, but in the end she popped up at my desk with her glasses on one day saying how much better she could see.

Originally Posted by cromag

BTW, I should mention that I got a pair with "progressive lenses" -- the lower part of the lens is for near focus and the upper part for distant focus.

Well, I've been wearing them for a couple of months now, and I cannot get used to them! I really get bothered by the differences when I'm walking, for instance, and the area in front of me is in focus but the area at my feet is out of focus (unless I turn my head down). I've tripped over more curbs, lately! Besides, when I sit down to read I read for lengthy periods, and I'm most comfortable with my eyes are straight ahead, so I still really need to switch to reading glasses, anyway. The next pair will be conventional glasses.

[crich70]

Bi-focals take getting used to as well. For a while my eyes kept on seeing the line as a smudge on the surface of the glasses. Now I don't even consciously notice it any longer.

[crane3]

Originally Posted by crich70

And some eye conditions are based on underlying problems that effect the whole body. Things like diabetes for example. High blood sugars can cause problems not only with obvious things like the kidneys and the heart but with the eyes as well. I have a yearly eye exam for just that reason. After one such exam I had to have some laser treatment on my left eye due to some slight bleeding in the eye. It was just starting to be a problem and the Dr. nipped it in the bud in order to prevent future problems.

When "marked" by the doctors as a diabetic, one is usually suggested to have a diabetic retina eye scan every 1 or 2 years.

[crane3]

Originally Posted by crich70

Bi-focals take getting used to as well. For a while my eyes kept on seeing the line as a smudge on the surface of the glasses. Now I don't even consciously notice it any longer.

Didn't have any problem with "regular" bifocals BUT do/did with bifocals consisting of a computer & reading glass prescription. Now have a 27" monitor where I find that I have to put my computer/reading glasses in a drawer most likely due to the size of the screen since no problem with a 22" monitor.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by crane3

When "marked" by the doctors as a diabetic, one is usually suggested to have a diabetic retina eye scan every 1 or 2 years.

Well they put the eye drops in and after my eyes are dilated the Dr. uses a lens to look inside to see if there is any problem. So far I've only had that one small problem that needed laser treatment. I see him again in January. When I was 1st diabetic though I had to wait for my blood sugars to be under better control before he could give me an accurate prescription for glasses as the lenses of my eyes were swollen due to high blood sugar levels.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by crane3

Didn't have any problem with "regular" bifocals BUT do/did with bifocals consisting of a computer & reading glass prescription. Now have a 27" monitor where I find that I have to put my computer/reading glasses in a drawer most likely due to the size of the screen since no problem with a 22" monitor.

Well it wasn't so much a problem as just getting used to glasses that had the line (for the bifocals) as opposed to plain glasses. My eyes saw the line blurred out so that it looked like a smudge. Now days I don't even notice it.

[dublincheri]

Originally Posted by Mnementh

Please don't spread misinformation like this, it's complete and utter baloney. Your eyesight will never "permanently" adjust for near vision it's physically not possible.

Mnementh

Oh how I wish I had a reply like this for my parents when I sat close to the television as a child!

I'm also a #3 who takes my glasses off for any sort of close work like reading or sewing. I had to stop wearing contacts and get varifocals at exactly 40 years of age. Although I have multifocal contacts as well as monovision ones, neither can approach the level of vision I have up close uncorrected so I have to carry reading glasses with me when wearing either. My biggest complaint is that my reading portion of the varifocal glasses is never corrected to the point where I can wear them to sew.

[pdurrant]

I beleive studies have shown that *for children* lots of close work (e.g. reading) may cause a existing inherited tendency to short-sightedness to manifest.

The American Optometric Association says

There is significant evidence that many people inherit nearsightedness, or at least the tendency to develop nearsightedness. If one or both parents are nearsighted, there is an increased chance their children will be nearsighted.

Even though the tendency to develop nearsightedness may be inherited, its actual development may be affected by how a person uses his or her eyes. Individuals who spend considerable time reading, working at a computer, or doing other intense close visual work may be more likely to develop nearsightedness.

[crane3]

Originally Posted by crich70

Well it wasn't so much a problem as just getting used to glasses that had the line (for the bifocals) as opposed to plain glasses. My eyes saw the line blurred out so that it looked like a smudge. Now days I don't even notice it.

It could be that I didn't have problems with the lens lines when I got bifocals; think that my lens prescription had gotten pass the -12+ diopter mark. When I had cataract surgery, the lens was up to -14 diopter; reason why I didn't do the mono vision bit as I felt that it was too much of a difference.

At least, my DMV record shows that my eyesight "improved" as I no longer have the "must wear corrective lens" on my driver's license. Wearing reading glasses isn't a chore for me since I've been wearing glasses since 8 yrs old; I do carry reading glasses when out but have only used them for menus, some food labels & sometime cooking instructions on frozen foods (before & after purchase)...

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The only people past 50 who don't need reading glasses are those who are already a little bit short-sighted. (Or don't read!)

I don't need reading glasses myself -- when I'm in bed. That's because I'm very short sighted, and without my glasses the furthest I can see in focus is about 15 cm (six inches)! Which is perfect for reading an eReader on very small text, held very close.

I beat you there. My minimum focusing distance without glasses is 1 inch. I can still read normal text at 4 inch, but then I need reading glasses to extend my focusing distance to 10 inches. After that, I can't see enough detail to read and I use normal glasses.

This year, my dioptre changed from -9 (normal) / -7 (computer) to -7 / -5.5, which would be the equivalent of needing to use reading glasses, and I'm only in my mid-thirties.

[Mnementh]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I beleive studies have shown that *for children* lots of close work (e.g. reading) may cause a existing inherited tendency to short-sightedness to manifest.

The American Optometric Association says

That's true, there was a study done many years ago (please don't ask me for a reference as it was in one of my text books while studying to become an Optician) about why there was almost zero incidences of myopia in the Inuit peoples, turns out that the vast majority of them (at the time not sure about now) were illiterate and therefore did not read as children. This was postulated at the time as a possible reason for the higher incidence of myopia among western civilisation. Of course it could just be genetics which weren't as well understood at the time

There are many possible causes of myopia, the most common being the eye being slightly too long for the focal length of the lens when at rest. It is thought that excessive near work when the eye is developing can cause a pre-existing tendency to near/short-sightedness to manifest as you quite rightly pointed out. What constitutes excessive however is up to debate and will probably never be able to be answered with any certainty

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Mnementh

That's true, there was a study done many years ago (please don't ask me for a reference as it was in one of my text books while studying to become an Optician) about why there was almost zero incidences of myopia in the Inuit peoples, turns out that the vast majority of them (at the time not sure about now) were illiterate and therefore did not read as children. This was postulated at the time as a possible reason for the higher incidence of myopia among western civilisation. Of course it could just be genetics which weren't as well understood at the time

There are many possible causes of myopia, the most common being the eye being slightly too long for the focal length of the lens when at rest. It is thought that excessive near work when the eye is developing can cause a pre-existing tendency to near/short-sightedness to manifest as you quite rightly pointed out. What constitutes excessive however is up to debate and will probably never be able to be answered with any certainty

I can see how that could be. Native American groups are more prone to things like Diabetes as well quite possibly because historically they didn't have a refined sugar diet unlike those of European heritage.